The perception of the Second French Empire has long been a subject of controversy in French historiography. For a long time, the regime was synonymous with national shame, and historians presented Napoleon III in an unfavourable manner that persisted for decades. Negative interpretations prevailed until the 1930s and the 1940s, after which a number of historians challenged preconceptions about the regime and began to portray it positively.
By performing external and internal analyses of books on the Second Empire written by French authors since 1870, this thesis identifies factors that explain the slow transformation of the understanding of the regime and the Emperor by historians. External analysis will demonstrate that authors, historical context and changing norms in the historical profession play important roles in the writing of French history. Internal analysis consists of examination of the regime’s socio-economic, domestic, foreign policies, and of the Emperor’s personality. It will show that other factors, such as sources used and angles from which a subject is studied, had an impact on the way authors construed the Second Empire and Napoleon III.